How in the hell does one write a statement of teaching philosophy?
It's exactly what it sounds like. It is a statement - two to three pages long - describing the philosophy/ideology/mentality/techniques that underlie your teaching.
Now, I love teaching. Absolutely love it. One might even say that I "luuuurve" it. But I cannot fathom how to write one of these things in such a way as to not sound A) excessively enthusiastic, B) creepily engaged, C) overly detached or D) flat-out cheesy.
And as I've asked around for advice, I've hit upon a disturbing (but perhaps unsurprising) trend. Every professor I have spoken to - literally every professor - has said that they rarely bother to read these things because they're all invariably the same and say little about a candidate's actual abilities as a teacher.
According to one: "No one comes out and says, 'I think discussion is for losers. My teaching philosophy is that I lecture, they listen, and the smart ones understand what I'm saying and write it down.' Everyone talks about the importance of engaging the students in dialogue, teaching them to think, etc., etc., etc."
Another professed his hatred of the entire ordeal: "If I had to write a teaching philosophy right this minute, I would say only this: Oderint dum Metuant - 'Let them hate me, so long as they fear me.' "
My favorite? "I don't know what the purpose of the "teaching philosophy" statement is, except to see how you perform with an arbitrary and unrealistic rhetorical exercise."
So what's your advice? How do you go about writing one of these things? For those of you who've been on search committees, do you even read these? If you do, what are you looking for?
[Cross posted to College Misery]
10 comments:
When I read them, I like to see fairly specific examples... but that takes them away from the philosophy part. I want to get a good sense that the candidate has actually been on the other side of the classroom and thought about what they're doing.
I'd say that if you're applying to a SLAC, then getting something about a commitment to Liberal Arts education is probably importat. But it's impossible to know how they'll be read.
Good luck. Everyone hates them.
As a current ed major, dear sweet christ am I happy to hear you write this. Because practicing those things is one of the most hateful exercises.... (we're supposed to write one at the end of every spring semester and it's supposed to reflect our growth and development as we move through the education curriculum.. or it's a lot of bullshit, whichever).
Sadly, as I am on the side of the inexperienced, I cannot offer advice.
I have been told that the teaching philosophy is a testing ground to make sure you aren't a wacko. Sure all the philosophies say the same thing. They pretty much should stick to the script. If you don't? You're totally out of the picture because you might cone off as not caring, only interested in research, or are indeed crazy. So yeah, as you're writing, just know that it is an exercise to make sure you know how to conform to the standard principles of the field. Good luck!
I pretty much skipped the philosophy part and just described what I actually did on a typical day in the classroom and why. It seemed to work.
I have actually read a t.p. that said more or less this: 'I think discussion is for losers. My teaching philosophy is that I lecture, they listen, and the smart ones understand what I'm saying and write it down.'
The person who wrote this . . . well, let's just say it was a problem recognized by the entire committee involved.
So, what Fie & Bardiac said. Do you have an appropriate sense of audience? Do you appear to think of your students as actual people, not just nuisances you have to deal with to get your research funds? Actual descriptions of classroom engagement are usually good.
Bardiac - Specific examples. I can do that. And, coming from a SLAC myself, I'm a big fan of the Liberal Arts.
Emily - You write one of these every year? Dear god, I'm sorry.
Fie! - I can do that! I can not sound crazy!
Fretful - Hm. That doesn't sound like a bad call, either. I like it.
Dame Eleanor Hull - Wow. Just... wow. What possesses someone to sabotage themselves like that?
Were you only asking profs at your R-1 level institution? Cause people at small liberal arts colleges and more teaching focused colleges have told me they think they are important.
I worked and worked on mine, and it may be very specific, but it still sounds stupid and not at all like me. Eh.
I'd forgotten about this, but Sisyphus started a thread on teaching philosophies last spring. I wound up answering the question here: http://dameeleanor.blogspot.com/2011/04/teaching-philosophies.html
There's a link to Sisyphus's post in mine. Sorry about the self-advertising---you don't have to post the comment, but you might like to look at the posts.
School is a game. Figure out how to play. You know, what the rules are, how to do things the expected way and then play. Hopefully you will be able to CHANGE those rules eventually.
I like Bardiac's description--and yes, that's it in a nutshell: how do you think about your teaching? Search committees also might respond well to specific terminology that shows you have a pedagogical stance: e.g., "student-centered" or "self-reflective" or "critical thinking" or whatever it is that you value in your own classroom approach. You know: teacher slang.
You're right--they are painful to write. But once you do it, you can use it as a model for various documents you will need to produce down the road...
Post a Comment